Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (6273)	9/16/2007 2:57:46 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 13056

"I am aware that S has its own foreign policy" ROFLOL!! That's for sure! "Berkeley? Not sure about Santa Monica, but probably." Again, it was the fine citizens of the Richmond District who did not want the Starbuck's in their neighborhood. This has noting to do with San Francisco restricting Starbuck's right to ply their wares. "HOLLY, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BAR ME OR MY LAWFUL BUSINESSES MY NAME OR THE EQUIVALENT OF THAT FROM OPENING IN A PROPERLY ZONED AREA! That is a prima facie violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. There is an equivalent clause in the CA Constitution. That ordnance is in violation of both. You can bar or limit specific TYPES of businesses in an area if you have a valid reason for doing so. For example, a city can limit the number of licquor stores and bars- -but NOT in a manner that specifically prevents a particular store from opening. You may attempt to argue that that is precisely what that ordinance does- -limit the number of coffee shops in a chain in the city to 11. Why a chain? Why coffee shops? I no of no bad traits they have. Why 11? Those questions are unanswered. It is quite specifically meant to favor one chain and prevent further growth of another." Still, there are many, MANY more Starbuck's stores in San Francisco proper than there are Peet's stores. "Absolutely. The existing Starbuck's would have to grandfathered. starbuckseverywhere.net Somewhere over 40. I quit counting. Obviously the people isn SF like them." "Maybe people like Starbuck's more. Who are you to argue with that?" I'm not arguing with it, but I do doubt it. Besides, I'm a Yuban aficionado, remember? "WITH THAT NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL STORES, YOU DOUBT IT????" Again, the merchants and the citizenry of the San Francisco Richmond District did NOT want a Starbuck's in their neighborhood. I believe neighborhoods should have the right to decide what businesses and activities they want to allow. "By name or by an ordinance crafted such as to be aimed specifically to favor them? No." The Richmond District is rife with coffeehouses. It's not like there is a shortage. Besides, I see Starbuck's as the Microsoft of coffee houses, and I believe the fine folk of the Richmond District may have had the same apprehensions. Chew on that a bit, if you like. <g> "The ordinance is not aimed at the Richmond district; it's aimed at the whole city- -and is in keeping with SF's anti-capitalist sentiment. If Starbuck's had a lock on the coffee business, am antitrust suit might be in order. You know and I know it does not. But it gained a customer and Peet's lost one with that move."